Except that he said after he swore: "I did not concede the preemption except because of the high price." Ibn Abi Layla said: He has no right of preemption because he conceded and consented. Our position is that he left it due to an excuse, for he is not content with it at a high price, while he is content with it at a low price, and he may not have the high amount, so it does not lapse by that, just as if he left it due to lack of knowledge. The same applies if he revealed that the sold item was a small portion, then it turned out to be large, or revealed that they traded in dinars, then it turned out to be dirhams, or in dirhams and it turned out to be dinars. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and Zufar. Abu Hanifah and his two companions said: If their value is the same, the right of preemption lapses because they are like the same genus. Our position is that they are two different genera, so they resemble garments and livestock, and because he may own the currency with which the sale took place but not what he revealed, so he leaves it due to his lack of ownership of it. Likewise, if he revealed that he bought it with cash, then it turned out he bought it with a tradeable commodity, or with a commodity and it turned out to be cash, or with one type of commodity and it turned out to be another, or that a buyer bought it and it turned out he bought it for someone else, or he revealed he bought it for someone else and it turned out he bought it for himself, or that he bought it for one person and it turned out he bought it for another; because he might consent to a partnership with one person and not another, or he might favor someone or fear them, so he leaves it for that reason. Similarly, if he revealed that he bought the whole for a price, then it turned out he bought half of it for half the price, or that he bought half of it for a price and it turned out he bought all of it for twice that, or that he bought the share alone and it turned out he or someone else bought it, or that he and someone else bought it and it turned out he bought it alone, the right of preemption does not lapse in all of these cases; because he may have a purpose in what he concealed compared to what he revealed, so he leaves it for that reason, thus his right of preemption does not lapse, just as if he revealed he bought it for a price and it turned out to be less. However, if he revealed he bought it for a price and it turned out he bought it for more, or that he bought the whole for a price and it turned out he bought only some of it for it, his right of preemption lapses; because the harm in what he concealed is greater, so if he is not content with it at a low price with its minor harm, then he is less likely to be content with a higher price.